/lit/ - Literature

>>10520313
My chapters were 150 pages long each

>>10377090
Reasons Dan Brown is good:

1. His books while high in subject matter are down to Earth and don't have a pretense of being anything but what they are
2. He appeals to normies yet he educates them on genuinely interesting topics rarely touched in pop culture like Renaissance art, the work of Dante and Lithurgical history
3. His fans are salt of the Earth folks, usually middle aged working parents just trying to understand history and religion not push some edgy perspectives
4. Although he tackles controversial topics he treats religion with respect and dignity, challanging our assumptions while respecting the sanctity behind it

Its clear why redditors hate him while praising authors that are far more middle-brow than him such as Stephen King or Douglas Adams.
In the guise of sacrosanct he's actually one of the most traditionally respectul and considered pop-writers today. And of course that boils the blood of redditors who can't stand history and religion still having an importance in life

>>10371276
>Marx's commodity fetishism section

Ah yes, the famous commodity fetishism "section" of Marx

>>9897212
Reading is more important as a productive act, not a receptive act. A great and thoughtful reading of one great book is worth infinitely more than simply knowing the contents of a thousand. Quantity should be your last concern.

>>9638334
>Some future Harold Bloom can always declare something like Infinite Jest bunk and kill off all scholarship on it for 100 years.

Implying this didn't literally happen with the original G

/lit/ has gone way uphill.

Just six months ago this place was a mess, a battleground between mindless Stirnerbots and Alt-right faggots in a brutal arms race to out edge each other.
its gotten nice and harmonic again since their mutually assured destruction

>>9441084
Nice

>>9255741

>>9211419
Quality post

>>8926572
>>8926578
I love this noise, like steam from a kettle. Supper is ready

>>8904276
He was judging him by the standards of a potential canonical writer, as David was posturing as and as his cronies lauded his work as.
Its true in that sense. Wallace offered no original insights, to the world, our time or even himself. His writing style was contrived and predictable. His characters stuffy and superficially explored.
He was certainly competant and moderately intelligent. But as a writer his success and legacy was entirely facetious positioning and cultivating an illusion of profundity. He killed himself knowing this.

>>8880446
The bottom right you mean?
Thats Harold Bloom, the most patrician man that ever lived. He has read literally everything at least once with full comprehension.

>>8838936
>>8838950
>>8838965
>>8838975
>>8838985
>Getting intellectually curbstomped so hard you have to delete all your posts

What's reading?

Could he have been more wrong? "I am more and more certain that a great deal of what now passes for literary study of the so-called politically correct variety will wash aside. It is a ripple. I give it five years. I have seen many fashions come and go since I first took up literary study. After forty years one begins to be able to distinguish an ephemeral surface ripple from a deeper current or an authentic change." (1991)

>>8763629
Yes, yes it is

>>8754608
Holy shit, all of those "great" authors just got ripped apart by Bloom

epubs/mobis or pdfs?

>>8719507
>the foundations of critical thinking

People regurgitate this all the time, the fuck does it even mean?

>>8671720
>>8671716
>>8671714
>>8671709
Glad we sorted this out lads

>>8621015
>listing Becketts trilogy as a single entry

Thank Christ we have someone who knows what he's doing in charge

>>8537049
Bloom decrees so, I'm going to start Women in Love now, this thread sparked my interest too

>>8516699
Based Bloom

>>8437219
>>8437187
>The New York Times